It's not a good time to move to AMD cpus. The only one I would use is Thuban if I was in that market.

Sorry Tsm106 I agree with pretty much every thing you say but not this, piledriver is a fantastic CPU, I am in the process of gathering info to show CPU to gpu usage running crossfire 7970 GHz editions, the results so far show an 8350 driving the 2 gpu's overclocked at 100% while the processor usage is at about 55% that is at 1080p 120hz.

Steamroller will come out on the same socket so you are future proofed for 2 years maybe more, I think that's perfect time to move across, I base this on where I live and a 8350 is much cheaper than a 3570k here.

Sorry Tsm106 I agree with pretty much every thing you say but not this, piledriver is a fantastic CPU, I am in the process of gathering info to show CPU to gpu usage running crossfire 7970 GHz editions, the results so far show an 8350 driving the 2 gpu's overclocked at 100% while the processor usage is at about 55% that is at 1080p 120hz.
Steamroller will come out on the same socket so you are future proofed for 2 years maybe more, I think that's perfect time to move across, I base this on where I live and a 8350 is much cheaper than a 3570k here.

I'm sorry but even my i7 is better at CF/SLI then the fastest AMD system. And i7's came out in 08.
They maybe fine with one card, but that where I would draw the line.

Source?
CPU/ GPU usage for Sleeping dogs Highest possible settings on 1080P
Also to the guy who was saying his gtx670 is faster than a hd 7970?
1 HD7970
2 HD 7970

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/6
this is a single GPU at stock CPU speeds, multi GPU would be worse. Note if you look the i7 760 is about on par with the 8350. Now the i7 760 is already clocked pretty low, Single Thread IPC performance is already better on the i7. Only thing the AMD does better is multi threaded workloads. CPU heavy games AMD will be lagging behind.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/6
this is a single GPU at stock CPU speeds, multi GPU would be worse. Note if you look the i7 760 is about on par with the 8350. Now the i7 760 is already clocked pretty low, Single Thread IPC performance is already better on the i7. Only thing the AMD does better is multi threaded workloads. CPU heavy games AMD will be lagging behind.

That's one game, then you look at crysis2 and battlefield3 and there is very little difference?? if you look at at the titles being released at present they are utilising more cores, the games that I currently play, BF3, Hitman Absolution, Sleeping Dogs, f1 2012 and soon to be far cry 3, they appear to be utilising more cores than older titles, plus the rumour going round is that the xbox 720 a 4 or 6 core processor, at that point games should come out being able to utilise 8 cores regularly.

I have no doubt though that any old game that is single threaded will run far better on your I7 then my 8350, but I bet the list of games I currently play will be better on on the 8350, no source just a hunch...

Source?
CPU/ GPU usage for Sleeping dogs Highest possible settings on 1080P
Also to the guy who was saying his gtx670 is faster than a hd 7970?
1 HD7970
2 HD 7970

Okay. But in Skyrim for example, its lagging BEHIND. I personally love the CPU because I do lots of 3D and Rendering, so a 3-5FPS drop in normal games and between 90FPS and 60-70FPS in Skyrim won't make a difference for me personally. So if I was in that price-range I would've gone for the 8350. But If I have money for the 3930k, no AMD processor can even TOUCH that.

That's one game, then you look at crysis2 and battlefield3 and there is very little difference?? if you look at at the titles being released at present they are utilising more cores, the games that I currently play, BF3, Hitman Absolution, Sleeping Dogs, f1 2012 and soon to be far cry 3, they appear to be utilising more cores than older titles, plus the rumour going round is that the xbox 720 a 4 or 6 core processor, at that point games should come out being able to utilise 8 cores regularly.
I have no doubt though that any old game that is single threaded will run far better on your I7 then my 8350, but I bet the list of games I currently play will be better on on the 8350, no source just a hunch...

You would be surprised on how CPU demanding BF3 is during multiplayer, less frame drops and more stable performance with a better CPU thats for sure. I'm not saying that your 8350 is a bad chip, it just is a under performer when it comes to games. Crossfire especially. Crossfire and SLI require a lot of single thread IPC strength to push the cards. Not only do intel chips tend to provide more of a stable frame rate, they tend to scale better. Personally I would like to see a comparison of BF3 on your setup, one with CF on and one with CF off. SLI just about doubles my FPS, CF should do the same for you. Games don't really use anymore then 4 cores ATM.

Also the 360 already has a tri core with 6 total threads, so multi thread gaming has always been around just not implemented as well on the pc side.

You would be surprised on how CPU demanding BF3 is during multiplayer, less frame drops and more stable performance with a better CPU thats for sure. I'm not saying that your 8350 is a bad chip, it just is a under performer when it comes to games. Crossfire especially. Crossfire and SLI require a lot of single thread IPC strength to push the cards. Not only do intel chips tend to provide more of a stable frame rate, they tend to scale better. Personally I would like to see a comparison of BF3 on your setup, one with CF on and one with CF off. SLI just about doubles my FPS, CF should do the same for you. Games don't really use anymore then 4 cores ATM.
Also the 360 already has a tri core with 6 total threads, so multi thread gaming has always been around just not implemented as well on the pc side.

Fair point, I will do the comparison tonight on BF3 using fraps on multiplayer and come back with my results, I think it will be fair to play same map at 64v64, ultra settings for 20 minutes each and see the averages, Ill include a graph of CPU and GPU usage!

I've owned two 7970s in the past, (which were voltage locked, mind you). The first one could not clock further than 1050, while the second one could do 1090 (which are a little better than GHZ clocks, but not much). They were also whinning (both of them..), so I decided to get a refund and went for a GTX 670 instead.
My GTX 670 is faster than my 7970s (i'm not talking about crossfire, just 1 card vs 1 card), mostly because it overclock quite well.
That's my heaven score with a mild overclock.
Heaven score with a single 7970 was 47 frames per second (at 1060 core / 1500 memory). I dont have the screenshot for it, unfortunatly.
In my case, the GTX 670 is 11% faster than the 7970, because of the overclock.
If you get a 7970 that can clock 1300+, it WILL destroy anything that Nvidia has to offer, but if you get a lemon, like I did, twice, you will be disapointed.
I'm not trying to mislead people. I insist on the fact that kepler and tahiti are close because I had to learn the hard way that they are. And i'm not just pulling that out of my arse, I owned them.
If you get a bad clocking chip, may it be a AMD or a Nvidia, it will perform poorly, while a good clocking chip will perform well.
This is why I say that they are in the same league.
Drivers used : 12.11 Beta 4 (tahiti) and 310.xx (kepler)
EDIT : Here is a few runs of heaven. Notice that the tahiti@1070 scored 47 fps, which is on par with what mines scored. And notice that the 670 scored only 43 fps. I'm posting that mainly to show how well both tahiti and keplers scale with overclocks.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Of course a good clocking 670 will edge out a lemon 7970. All things being equal, a 7970 will wreck the 670 and the 680 while costing less than the latter. You also don't need to 1300+ to beat Kepler. Your experience with Tahiti does not represent real data and neither does mine but for what it's worth, I've owned 4 7970s and all them easily surpassed 1060/1500. The lowest clocking sample was the Gigabyte 7970 which managed 1125/1650. All other samples exceeded these clocks

In the future, if you want to compare cards consider sizing them up properly[Good clocking 670 vs Good clocking 7970 / Stock 670 vs Stock 7970 / etc.]. Having said that, both my 7950[1280/1800] and 7970[1320/1775] at their max overclocks beat out the the best 680[1372/1771] at its max overclock. Apples to apples

BTW here is what the 7970 scores at 1060/1500 using same settings:
Decent score for a near stock 7970GHz